Digital medicine, digital research and artificial intelligence (AI) have the power to transform the field of diabetes with continuous and no-burden remote monitoring of patients’ symptoms, ...physiological data, behaviours, and social and environmental contexts through the use of wearables, sensors and smartphone technologies. Moreover, data generated online and by digital technologies – which the authors suggest be grouped under the term ‘digitosome’ – constitute, through the quantity and variety of information they represent, a powerful potential for identifying new digital markers and patterns of risk that, ultimately, when combined with clinical data, can improve diabetes management and quality of life, and also prevent diabetes-related complications. Moving from a world in which patients are characterized by only a few recent measurements of fasting glucose levels and glycated haemoglobin to a world where patients, healthcare professionals and research scientists can consider various key parameters at thousands of time points simultaneously will profoundly change the way diabetes is prevented, managed and characterized in patients living with diabetes, as well as how it is scientifically researched. Indeed, the present review looks at how the digitization of diabetes can impact all fields of diabetes – its prevention, management, technology and research – and how it can complement, but not replace, what is usually done in traditional clinical settings. Such a profound shift is a genuine game changer that should be embraced by all, as it can provide solid research results transferable to patients, improve general health literacy, and provide tools to facilitate the everyday decision-making process by both healthcare professionals and patients living with diabetes.
Objective To assess the influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates within meta-analyses.Design Meta-epidemiological study.Data sources 93 meta-analyses (735 randomised controlled ...trials) assessing therapeutic interventions with binary outcomes, published in the 10 leading journals of each medical subject category of the Journal Citation Reports or in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Data extraction Sample size, outcome data, and risk of bias extracted from each trial.Data synthesis Trials within each meta-analysis were sorted by their sample size: using quarters within each meta-analysis (from quarter 1 with 25% of the smallest trials, to quarter 4 with 25% of the largest trials), and using size groups across meta-analyses (ranging from <50 to ≥1000 patients). Treatment effects were compared within each meta-analysis between quarters or between size groups by average ratios of odds ratios (where a ratio of odds ratios less than 1 indicates larger effects in smaller trials). Results Treatment effect estimates were significantly larger in smaller trials, regardless of sample size. Compared with quarter 4 (which included the largest trials), treatment effects were, on average, 32% larger in trials in quarter 1 (which included the smallest trials; ratio of odds ratios 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.82), 17% larger in trials in quarter 2 (0.83, 0.75 to 0.91), and 12% larger in trials in quarter 3 (0.88, 0.82 to 0.95). Similar results were obtained when comparing treatment effect estimates between different size groups. Compared with trials of 1000 patients or more, treatment effects were, on average, 48% larger in trials with fewer than 50 patients (0.52, 0.41 to 0.66) and 10% larger in trials with 500-999 patients (0.90, 0.82 to 1.00). Conclusions Treatment effect estimates differed within meta-analyses solely based on trial sample size, with stronger effect estimates seen in small to moderately sized trials than in the largest trials.
Morphine, and analgesics other than morphine (AOM), are commonly used to treat postoperative pain after major surgery. However, which AOM provides the best efficacy-safety profile remains unclear.
...Randomized trials of any AOM alone or any combination of AOM compared with placebo or another AOM in adults undergoing major surgery and receiving morphine patient-controlled analgesia were included in a network meta-analysis. The outcomes were morphine consumption, pain, incidence of nausea, vomiting at 24 h and severe adverse effects.
135 trials (13,287 patients) assessing 14 AOM alone or in combination were included. For all outcomes, comparisons with placebo were over-represented. Few trials assessed combinations of two AOM and none the combination of three or more. Network meta-analysis found morphine consumption reduction was greatest with the combination of two AOM (acetaminophen + nefopam, acetaminophen + NSAID, and tramadol + metamizol): -23.9 (95% CI -40;-7.7), -22.8 (-31.5;-14) and -19.8 (35.4;-4.2) mg per 24 h, respectively. For AOM used alone, morphine consumption reduction was greatest with α-2 agonists, NSAIDs, and COX-2 inhibitors. When considering the risk of nausea, NSAIDs, corticosteroids and α-2 agonists used alone were the most efficacious (OR 0.7 95% CI: 0.6-0.8, 0.36 0.18-0.79, 0.41 0.15-.64, respectively). The paucity of severe adverse effects data did not allow assessment of efficacy-safety balance.
A combination of aetaminophen with either an NSAID or nefopam was superior to most AOM used alone, in reducing morphine consumption. Efficacy was best with three AOM used alone (α-2 agonists, NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors) and least with tramadol and acetaminophen. There is insufficient trial data reporting adverse events.
PROSPERO: CRD42013003912.
Objective
To estimate the minimum clinically important improvement (MCII) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) values for 4 generic outcomes in 5 rheumatic diseases and 7 countries.
Methods
We ...conducted a multinational (Australia, France, Italy, Lebanon, Morocco, Spain, and The Netherlands) 4‐week cohort study involving 1,532 patients who were prescribed nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs for ankylosing spondylitis, chronic back pain, hand osteoarthritis, hip and/or knee osteoarthritis, or rheumatoid arthritis. The MCII and PASS values were estimated with the 75th percentile approach for 4 generic outcomes: pain, patient global assessment, functional disability, and physician global assessment, all normalized to a 0–100 score.
Results
For the whole sample, the estimated MCII values for absolute change at 4 weeks were −17 (95% confidence interval 95% CI −18, −15) for pain; −15 (95% CI −16, −14) for patient global assessment; −12 (95% CI −13, −11) for functional disability assessment; and −14 (95% CI −15, −14) for physician global assessment. For the whole sample, the estimated PASS values were 42 (95% CI 40, 44) for pain; 43 (95% CI 41, 45) for patient global assessment; 43 (95% CI 41, 44) for functional disability assessment; and 39 (95% CI 37, 40) for physician global assessment. Estimates were consistent across diseases and countries (for subgroups ≥20 patients).
Conclusion
This work allows for promoting the use of values of MCII (15 of 100 for absolute improvement, 20% for relative improvement) and PASS (40 of 100) in reporting the results of trials of any of the 5 involved rheumatic diseases with pain, patient global assessment, physical function, or physician global assessment used as outcome criteria.
To test the efficiency of tumour necrosis factor blockers (adalimumab) in patients with painful refractory (non-responders to analgesics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)) hand ...osteoarthritis (OA).
We performed a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, multicentre study. Patients were randomised to: 1/1 adalimumab 40 mg for two subcutaneous injections at a 15-day interval or placebo and monitored for 6 months. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with an improvement of more than 50% in global pain (Visual Analogue Scale) between week 0 (W0) and week 6 (W6). Secondary outcomes included the number of painful joints, swollen joints, morning stiffness duration, patient and practitioner global assessments, functional indexes for hand OA, and consumption of analgesics. Analysis on the mean primary outcome measure was done on patients who received at least one injection.
99 patients were recruited and 85 patients were randomised. Among them, 37 patients in the placebo group and 41 in the adalimumab group received at least one injection and were evaluated at W6 (n=78) on the main efficacy outcome. Mean age was 62 years, 85% were women, and mean level of pain was 62 mm at W0. At W6, 35.1% in the adalimumab group versus 27.3% in the placebo group had a pain reduction ≥50% (RR 1.12 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.54; p=0.48). There were no statistical differences for all secondary end points. The rate of adverse events was similar in the two groups.
Adalimumab was not superior to placebo to alleviate pain in patients with hand OA not responding to analgesics and NSAIDs.
NCT00597623.
Objective To investigate the effect of the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines, and different editorial policies used by five leading general medical journals to implement the guidelines, on the ...reporting quality of abstracts of randomised trials.Design Interrupted time series analysis.Sample We randomly selected up to 60 primary reports of randomised trials per journal per year from five high impact, general medical journals in 2006-09, if indexed in PubMed with an electronic abstract. We excluded reports that did not include an electronic abstract, and any secondary trial publications or economic analyses. We classified journals in three categories: those not mentioning the guidelines in their instructions to authors (JAMA and New England Journal of Medicine), those referring to the guidelines in their instructions to authors but with no specific policy to implement them (BMJ), and those referring to the guidelines in their instructions to authors with an active policy to implement them (Annals of Internal Medicine and Lancet). Two authors extracted data independently using the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist.Main outcome Mean number of CONSORT items reported in selected abstracts, among nine items reported in fewer than 50% of the abstracts published across the five journals in 2006.Results We assessed 955 reports of abstracts of randomised trials. Journals with an active policy to enforce the guidelines showed an immediate increase in the level of mean number of items reported (increase of 1.50 items; P=0.0037). At 23 months after publication of the guidelines, the mean number of items reported per abstract for the primary outcome was 5.41 of nine items, a 53% increase compared with the expected level estimated on the basis of pre-intervention trends. The change in level or trend did not increase in journals with no policy to enforce the guidelines (BMJ, JAMA, and New England Journal of Medicine).Conclusion Active implementation of the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines by journals can lead to improvements in the reporting of abstracts of randomised trials.
Prices of anti-cancer drugs are skyrocking. We aimed to assess the clinical benefit of new drugs for treating advanced solid tumors at the time of their approval by the US Food and Drug ...Administration (FDA) and to search for a relation between price and clinical benefit of drugs.
We included all new molecular entities and new biologics for treating advanced solid cancer that were approved by the FDA between 2000 and 2015. The clinical benefit of drugs was graded based on FDA medical review of pivotal clinical trials using the 2016-updated of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Characteristics of drugs and approvals were obtained from publicly available FDA documents and price was evaluated according to US Medicare, US Veterans Health Administration and United Kingdom market systems.
The FDA approved 51 new drugs for advanced solid cancer from 2000 to 2015; we could evaluate the value of 37 drugs (73%). By the ESMO-MCBS, five drugs (14%) were grade one (the lowest), nine (24%) grade two, 10 (27%) grade three, 11 (30%) grade four and two (5%) grade five (the highest). Thus, 13 drugs (35%) showed a meaningful clinical benefit (scale levels 4 and 5). By the ASCO-VF which had a range of 3.4–67, the median drug value was 37 (interquartile range 20–52). We found no relationship between clinical benefit and drug price (P=0.9). No characteristic of drugs and of approval was significantly associated with clinical benefit.
Many recently FDA-approved new cancer drugs did not have high clinical benefit as measured by current scales. We found no relation between the price of drugs and benefit to society and patients.
Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy may be associated with opportunistic infections (OIs).
To describe the spectrum of non-tuberculosis OIs associated with anti-TNF therapy and identify their ...risk factors.
A 3-year national French registry (RATIO) collected all cases of OI in patients receiving anti-TNF treatment for any indication in France. A case-control study was performed with three controls treated with anti-TNF agents per case, matched for gender and underlying inflammatory disease.
45 cases were collected of non-TB OIs in 43 patients receiving infliximab (n=29), adalimumab (n=10) or etanercept (n=4) for rheumatoid arthritis (n=26), spondyloarthritides (n=3), inflammatory colitis (n=8), psoriasis (n=1) or other conditions (n=5). One-third (33%) of OIs were bacterial (4 listeriosis, 4 nocardiosis, 4 atypical mycobacteriosis, 3 non-typhoid salmonellosis), 40% were viral (8 severe herpes zoster, 3 varicella, 3 extensive herpes simplex, 4 disseminated cytomegalovirus infections), 22% were fungal (5 pneumocystosis, 3 invasive aspergillosis, 2 cryptococcosis) and 4% were parasitic (2 leishmaniasis). Ten patients (23%) required admission to the intensive care unit, and four patients (9%) died. Risk factors for OIs were treatment with infliximab (OR=17.6 (95% CI 4.3 - 72.9); p<0.0001)or adalimumab (OR=10.0 (2.3 to 44.4); p=0.002) versus etanercept, and oral steroid use >10 mg/day or intravenous boluses during the previous year (OR=6.3 (2.0 to 20.0); p=0.002).
Various and severe OIs, especially those with intracellular micro-organisms, may develop in patients receiving anti-TNF treatment. Monoclonal anti-TNF antibody rather than soluble TNF receptor therapy and steroid use >10 mg/day are independently associated with OI.
Patients receiving anti-platelet agents for secondary cardiovascular prevention frequently require non-cardiac surgery. A substantial proportion of these patients have their anti-platelet drug ...discontinued before operation; however, there is uncertainty about the impact of this practice. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of maintenance or interruption of aspirin before surgery, in terms of major thrombotic and bleeding events.
Patients treated with anti-platelet agents for secondary prevention and undergoing intermediate- or high-risk non-cardiac surgery were included in this multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled, trial. We substituted non-aspirin anti-platelets with aspirin (75 mg daily) or placebo starting 10 days before surgery. The primary outcome was a composite score evaluating both major thrombotic and bleeding adverse events occurring within the first 30 postoperative days weighted by their severity (weights were established a priori using a Delphi consensus process). Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle.
We randomized 291 patients (n=145, aspirin group, and n=146, placebo group). The most frequent surgical procedures were orthopaedic surgery (52.2%), abdominal surgery (20.6%), and urologic surgery (15.5%). No significant difference was observed neither in the primary outcome score mean values (sd)=0.67 (2.05) in the aspirin group vs 0.65 (2.04) in the placebo group, P=0.94 nor at day 30 in the number of major complications between groups.
In these at-risk patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery, we did not find any difference in terms of occurrence of major thrombotic or bleeding events between preoperative maintenance or interruption of aspirin. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier. NCT00190307.
Background: In clinical trials, at the group level, results are usually reported as mean and standard deviation of the change in score, which is not meaningful for most readers. Objective: To ...determine the minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) of pain, patient’s global assessment of disease activity, and functional impairment in patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: A prospective multicentre 4 week cohort study involving 1362 outpatients with knee or hip OA was carried out. Data on assessment of pain and patient’s global assessment, measured on visual analogue scales, and functional impairment, measured on the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function subscale, were collected at baseline and final visits. Patients assessed their response to treatment on a five point Likert scale at the final visit. An anchoring method based on the patient’s opinion was used. The MCII was estimated in a subgroup of 814 patients (603 with knee OA, 211 with hip OA). Results: For knee and hip OA, MCII for absolute (and relative) changes were, respectively, (a) −19.9 mm (−40.8%) and −15.3 mm (−32.0%) for pain; (b) −18.3 mm (–39.0%) and −15.2 mm (−32.6%) for patient’s global assessment; (c) −9.1 (−26.0%) and −7.9 (−21.1%) for WOMAC function subscale score. The MCII is affected by the initial degree of severity of the symptoms but not by age, disease duration, or sex. Conclusion: Using criteria such as MCII in clinical trials would provide meaningful information which would help in interpreting the results by expressing them as a proportion of improved patients.
PDF
